| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.02.97 15:06l 213 Lines 7944 Bytes #-10706 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_24E
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/24E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<DB0MWS<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0RWI<PI8ZAA<
PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 970227/1035Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49747 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30103 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 10:06:16 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001773 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:18:29 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001754 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:25 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009197 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:22 MET
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:03:30 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_24E>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/24E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> rates
> to make even greater use of the gateway facilities and therefore the
> other packet radio facilities.
>
More BS.
> > Alert all concerned hams in Australia that this is a time to speak out
FOR
> > amateur radio, and AGAINST amateur telephone. Tell them that THIS is
their
> > opportunity to halt the saturation and replacement of the digital
amateur
> > radio network in Australia with "amateur telephone" systems which do
not
> > even use radio as their primary means of communication.
>
> Code forever! Diddly Dah! rah rah rah! :)
> Have you ever listened to Tony Hancocks "The Radio Ham" ?
> My guess is you wouldn't understand the real humour.
>
Probably not. There's nothing funny about a small clique of Internet
forwarders managing to screw up a network built over a period of ten years
by thousands of dedicated ham radio operators.
> > Finally, ask the ASMA if they are willing to give up the emergency
> > communications "backup" capability which amateur RADIO provides in
times
> > when phone lines are dead or ( as is more often the case ) simply
> > overloaded during the course of an emergency or disaster.
>
> Oh yeh, this one. I agree completely, I love radio, it was and is my
> first
> love. Computing was my second and is now an equal first. I see many real
> advantages to maintaining the existence of amateur radio, I'm not about
> removing it, though I do tend to agree with Phil's comments if you've
> quoted him correctly. On the _whole_ I believe amateur radio is waste of
> spectrum and represents a gross social inequity, which the SMA has been
> sensible enough to remedy by moving toward a user pays scheme.
>
You and Phil can both take a hike, Terry. The global amateur radio digital
net is ham radio's greatest achievement, and a great source of pride to the
many hams who have participated in it's establishment and growth.
Let me invite anybody who doesn't like it to go on to other things they DO
like.
> My frustration is that any attempt to actually do any truly progressive
> and technological is hampered by lack of application. If there isn't
> any application more useful than enabling people like me to talk to
> people like you then I'll dump radio. I'm not interested in talking
> about the weather and what my dog did in the backyard. I already have
> friends. The internet/irc/mud/moo is a much much more appropriate forum
> for idle social interaction at great distance. My interest in radio
> is purely technical but I'm persistently being interfered with by
> the non-technical bulk of radio amateurs. Nothing frustrates me more
> in this hobby the amateur radio operators that refuse to embrace new
> technology.
>
The telephone is not new RADIO technology. Wise up.
> > I sure will, Terry. Count on it.
>
> They are unlikely to listen very seriously to what you have to say. It
> is
> after all a domestic issue.
>
Well, we all do what we can... ;-)
>
> Thanks for your response, but it wasn't what I was looking for. I was
> looking for _technical_ justifications, the social/ethical/practical
> ones are obvious.
>
> I didn't intend this to generate a pointless flame war. I thought my
> request was reasonable and inoffensive. For a society that claims to
> be based on civil and social liberty a lot of U.S. hams seem hell bent
> on restricting the rights of others.
>
> Terry
I don't have any problem with you playing Amateur Telephone, Terry. I think
it's kinda stupid, but that's just my opinion.
I DO have a problem with you participating in the forwarding network for
the sole purpose of vandalising it. There is no rational justification for
that, and it is directly contrary to the "spirit" of ham radio, where hams
avoid lessening the enjoyment of others.
So kindly buzz off.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Packet Radio : N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
E-Mail : n5pvl@texoma.com
Web : http://www.texoma.com/~n5pvl
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:57:00 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@oklahoma.net>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
> You can explain to the ASMA how packet/internet gateways cause grievous
> damage to the existing amateur radio network, and destroy the motivation
to
> build new RF links.
I can understand your pessimism. I too would love to see Amateur Radio
networks
flourish, but experiance tells me that operations outside of a cell are
impossible.
The competing personal battles between groups fighting over what kind of
"data"
are acceptable, and which "networks" are for "our kind" etc, have been
quite an
education for me. Since most of these battles are fought because the
bandwidth
is limited, the only solution is to use another method until high bandwidth
products
become available.
We now know that 9600 and 1200 are not the answer for long haul. It breeds
infighting over "data." We know 56k is too expensive for a 200 mile
amateur internet.
What will solve all the infighting among groups is either Spread Spectrum
size
bandwidth, or telephone size bandwidth.
TAPR had an interesting possibility with $400 radios that had the bandwidth
needed
at a price per node better than 56k. That deal fell through, and until
another one like
it comes up, then stringing a 200 mile link is "too hard."
The motivation to build new RF links is the same as it always has been.
The reason
internet links even exist, is because some Hams would like to build the
applications
for when the infrastructure catches up. That segment of Ham radio can't
wait for the
RF segment. As long as they are educating themselves, and having fun, why
should
people spit on their enthusiasm. You would force them to use 1200 because
of
your personal concept of what "Ham Radio" is. That they could go no faster
than
what Hams can afford.
I would say that Ham gateways do not destroy motivation, they serve another
motivation. Low baud RF links were fun in the 80's, but offer no
motivation to
duplicate in the 90's. Until SS RF becomes affordable, only then can we
shed
the stranglehold of petty infighting over limited bandwidth. If I can use
a Ham
RF link without another group getting upset, only then will we have
"enough"
bandwidth. Until then I support linking cells via any method possible.
Whether
it be telco, or riding a free microwave link from the Oil company. To do
otherwise is just being a fool. That's my readout on the advantages to any
society getting acceptance from their government.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:30:44 +1100
From: Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telstra.com.au>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
Charles Brabham wrote:
> Obviously your idea of being a ham doesn't match mine either. Where I come
> from, we try to avoid activities which detract from the enjoyment of
> others.
>
> Nobody on the existing amateur radio forwarding net you disparage so asked
> a bunch of nincompoops with Internet connections to join in that network,
> or to destroy large portions of it by replacing functioning RF links with
> "amateur telephone" links..
Gateways do not impinge upon BBS forwarding at all. If BBS operators
chose not to forward that way then there would be zero net impact.
The fact that some BBS operators choose to forward via gateways
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_24F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
